Backcheck
Recap · UTA at DAL

Stars run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

The Stars earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

By the ModelJul 11, 6:10 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
3
Home
DAL
Dallas Stars
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.30Expected goals5.75
64% share for the better side
30Shot attempts (SOG)28
3High-danger chances12
48Corsi (all attempts)48
Score-adjusted: 50% / 50%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Dallas's 64% expected-goals share (5.75–3.30) tells a story far more lopsided than the 4-3 final. The Stars generated far more dangerous chances—12 high-danger looks to Utah's 3—and each shot carried greater weight: 0.120 xG per shot versus Utah's 0.069. The game featured 15 high-danger chances combined.

On the rush, Dallas converted 3 of 22 chances while Utah converted 3 of 31. Dallas crashed the net effectively, creating 5 rebound opportunities and converting 1. Goaltending made the difference. V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 1.75 goals above expected, while Dallas underperformed their 5.75 expected goals by the same margin. The Stars' power play was dominant: 2 goals on 9 shots (1.10 xG) decided the game.

Three Stars:

  • #4 M. Heiskanen (DAL) — 2A in 27:05
  • #6 J. Marino (UTA) — 2A in 20:50
  • #96 M. Rantanen (DAL) — 2A in 19:14
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA2 / 3 · 1.01 xG
DAL2 / 12 · 3.82 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA1 / 17 · 1.71 xG
DAL2 / 11 · 1.50 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 28 · 0.58 xG
DAL0 / 25 · 0.43 xG

DAL went 2-for-12 from high danger on 3.82 expected goals — 1.8 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
3 G · 3.30 xG · -0.3
DAL
4 G · 5.75 xG · -1.8
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
V. VanecekUTA
+1.8
J. OettingerDAL
+0.3

UTA finished -0.3 against expected, DAL -1.8 — V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 1.8 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
SNAP2/20
WRIST0/8
BACKHAND1/3
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
DAL
SNAP2/21
WRIST0/4
BACKHAND1/6
SLAP0/2
TIP IN1/3
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
UTA
DAL
Off the rush
3 G on 31 · 2.70 xG
3 G on 22 · 2.72 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1 · 0.15 xG
1 G on 5 · 1.13 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-20, DAL 2-for-21. UTA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Heiskanen
#4 · D · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 27:05 TOI · -1
J. Marino
#6 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:50 TOI · +3
M. Rantanen
#96 · R · DAL
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 19:14 TOI · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • UTA generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • V. Vanecek (UTA) stopped 1.8 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 15 high-danger chances combined (DAL 12, UTA 3).
  • DAL generated far more dangerous chances — 0.120 xG/shot vs 0.069. Quality over quantity.
  • DAL was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 22 rush chances.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 31 rush chances.
  • DAL created 5 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • DAL underperformed xG by 1.8 — wasted quality chances.
  • V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 1.8 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • DAL power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 9 PP shots (1.10 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at DAL · 8:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Stars: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 6:09 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

50%
DAL
Model favorite
50%
50%
UTA50DAL

DAL by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.52.5 DAL; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

UTA← edge
edge →DAL
52.0%5v5 xG%51.0%
53.0%Corsi%47.0%
2.64xGF / 602.36
2.39xGA / 602.29
2.26Goals for / gm2.07
1.99Goals against / gm1.68
1.003PDO — luck, not skill1.024

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 1.024) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model has this at 50-50, and it isn't overshooting. Utah and Dallas post nearly identical expected-goal percentages — 52.0% and 51.0% — while the league's win probability sits dead even. This isn't a game where hidden value waits; this is a genuine toss-up.

The teams arrive with drastically different momentum. Dallas has run 8-1-1 over its last ten, while Utah sits at -5 goal differential in the same span. The Stars belong on the short end if anyone does.

Utah, though, drives the puck. They're at 53.0% Corsi while Dallas sits at 47.0%, meaning the Mammoth own territorial play and generate more volume. That should tighten any advantage Dallas might claim on record.

Dallas has a regression watch. Their PDO stands at 1.024 — they're converting at an unsustainable clip. Utah's 1.003 is closer to neutral, a minor edge toward reality.

The goaltending angle favors neither: C. DeSmith works on a back-to-back, as does K. Vejmelka. Either could start on fumes or see a backup chase.

On talent, Dylan Guenther anchors Utah's attack. He's shot at 1.02 xG per 60, posted 28 goals to go with 15 assists, and generated three high-danger chances. His 16.8% shooting rate reflects downside variance — he'll regress toward league average. Daniil But, meanwhile, sits at just 2 goals on a 1.01 xG/60 rate; his 5.6% shooting is the opposite problem.

Jason Robertson carries Dallas's load at 0.96 xG per 60, 25 goals, and 21 assists. Michael Bunting rounds out the support at 0.83 xG per 60.

The defensive weak link for Utah is Maveric Lamoureux; for Dallas, Tyler Myers. Watch those names in transition.

This is what parity looks like: nearly identical underlying metrics, form pulling the teams in opposite directions, and neither goaltender fully rested. The model is right to call it a flip.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

UTA
Dylan Guenther28G 15A
1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh
Daniil But2G 2A
1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% sh
DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters